Advertisement

No logic in conflicting advice

Dean Nalder. Picture: The West Australian

There remains a deeply odd issue at the heart of the Dean Nalder conflict affair. It could yet be resolved by the release of the Department of Premier and Cabinet's investigation into the former banking and postal executive's financial affairs - but it may not be.

That issue is this: according to what Premier Colin Barnett told the media at his Monday press conference to announce Nalder's demotion, his private business interests in information technology are so extensive that his potential conflicts of interest if he continued as Finance Minister were unavoidable.

That seems an extraordinary revelation that demands further explanation.

The Premier added context by saying that a Government decision had been taken (though he didn't say when) that the Finance portfolio should take whole-of-government responsibility for IT matters, which have been a source of failure for governments (of all stripes) for years.

The investigation into Nalder's business affairs, sparked by revelations in _The West Australian _about those interests, revealed further information about what he owned, and hence the unavoidable potential for conflict. Think about that.

On Nalder's version of events, he says he sought advice from the Cabinet secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet tsar Peter Conran, about what he needed to disclose about his business interests - and then acted on that advice.

The Premier says that he believes Nalder received good-quality advice from Conran.

It seems impossible that both of these things can be true.

Follow the logic.

If Nalder got the right advice from Conran, he would have disclosed everything about all his business interests - including whatever business holdings he has in the IT world that have caused this unavoidable new conflict.

Yet the conflict was only discovered after DPC took its fresh look at Nalder's interests.

Either Nalder was fulsome in his initial discussions with Conran about what he needed to disclose, and got poor-quality advice about what he needed to disclose, in which case the influential departmental chief Conran is in the gun.

Or Nalder was not fulsome with Conran, in which case his continuing service in Cabinet is untenable. The Premier says he is satisfied Nalder is an honest man.

When _Inside State _put this logical inconsistency to the Premier's office on Tuesday, we got unsatisfactory answers.

To the question of which of these explanations was correct, and whether Conran stood by the quality of his advice, the response from the Premier's office was: "The Premier has stated he is confident that Minister Nalder received good advice from DPC. Details of the advice and disclosures are contained in the DPC report."

That report, Barnett said yesterday, could be released as soon as today. It will make fascinating reading as it, presumably, will settle this issue - as well as set out what should have been on the public record all along about the true extent of this "rising star's" seemingly extensive assets.

By way of comparison to all this messiness, consider the case of the Government's newest Cabinet member Colin Holt.

A simple search of the new Housing Minister's parliamentary disclosure of interests revealed that he owns a one-sixth share in a company, Spinifex International, invested in two residential property development syndicates, among other listed shareholdings.

Late yesterday, he told _Inside State _: "I am in the process of divesting my investment in Spinifex and expect that process to be completed imminently. I have met with the Cabinet secretary and I will be updating my annual return with the Legislative Council."

It should be as simple as that.